- within Environment topic(s)
- with readers working within the Chemicals and Oil & Gas industries
- within Environment, Finance and Banking and Consumer Protection topic(s)
As regulators wrestle with the challenge of sweeping PFAS restrictions, cookware unexpectedly has become a proving ground for risk-based regulation. The debate over nonstick pans is no longer confined to kitchens—it's shaping how policymakers draw lines between essential uses and outright bans.
Industry leaders are becoming more outspoken about the wisdom of certain exemptions. Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) President Steve Burns recently suggested that cookware has emerged as a bellwether in the debate about how to regulate PFAS in consumer products. Inside EPA interviewed Burns about CSA's success in securing the veto of a bill in California that would have banned the use of PFAS in cookware and in securing exemptions for cookware in New Mexico and Illinois. In the interview, Burns contended that these state level decisions do more than preserve nonstick pans; they validate a policy distinction between fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)—used in nonstick cookware—and legacy PFAS like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
According to Burns, exemptions for PTFE cookware create a transferable framework for other industries that rely on PFAS to meet performance and safety requirements to avoid strict compliance with comprehensive bans. If policymakers accept that PTFE poses comparatively lower risk than PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, it follows that firms in automotive, aerospace, oil and gas, consumer electronics, medical devices, and semiconductors could make a risk based, polymer specific case for differentiated treatment rather than one-size-fits-all bans.
Both state and federal authorities have demonstrated a willingness to accommodate PFAS uses in critical industries. The Trump administration announced that it would prioritize Toxic Substances Control Act reviews for new chemicals related to artificial intelligence and data center projects, which includes fluoropolymer use in semiconductor manufacturing. And legislation passed or pending in several states—including Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico and Illinois—provides specific exemptions in recognition of the critical nature of certain PFAS and the difficulty of finding replacements.
New Mexico and Maine also have adopted rules for determining "currently unavoidable uses" (CUU) of PFAS in consumer products. In Maine, obtaining a CUU exemption requires that the use be "essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society." See 38 MRS § 1614(1)(B-1). In October, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection approved only two of 11 petitions filed for CUU exemption. Notably, the board rejected a CUU exemption for cookware, underscoring the high evidentiary bar.
All told, CSA's success in securing PTFE cookware exemptions strengthens the case for targeted carve outs across other industries. Absent federal harmonization, companies must remain diligent in navigating the state by state patchwork of exemptions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
